Jump to content
Malcolm Merlyn

Left to die on road, pregnant Lucknow woman writes to PM Narendra Modi to end 'triple talaq', says 'I voted for BJP'

Recommended Posts

Quote

Lucknow: Shagufta Shah, a mother of two and a 'triple talaq' victim from Lucknow, has written a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging him to abolish the 'evil Islamic tradition' at the earliest.

 

 

Reports said on Wednesday that Shah decided to write to the Prime Minister about her ordeal after she was  'disowned' by her husband when she refused to abort her third child.

In her letter, Shah spoke eloquently about the pain she was subjected to when she became pregnant for the third time and how her husband Shamshad Sayeed wanted her to terminate the pregnancy, fearing that the third born may also be a girl.

 

Shagufta, who refused to budge down to the unreasonable demand, was tortured, beaten mercilessly by her husband and thrown onto the streets before being served with 'triple talaq'.

The lady from Saharanpur got little help from the police and decided to approach none other than the Prime Minister himself for help.

Shah, who took inspiration from fellow Saharanpur resident Atiya Sabri, said, '' I wrote a letter to PM Modi requesting him to abolish 'triple talaq'. I voted for him, I hope to get justice now.''

"Mr Prime Minister, it is my humble request to please help this poor and helpless woman. I also request you to ensure that this evil tradition ends so that woman like me and other victims get justice and live a dignified life," she had written in the letter. 

A copy of the letter has also been sent to UP CM Yogi Adithyanath, District Magistrate and the National Commission for Women.

 

The 'triple talaq' is a Sharia law practice which allows men to end a marriage simply by saying 'talaq' to their wives three times in succession.

While many Muslim-majority countries such as Pakistan and Indonesia have outlawed the custom for years, India - home to the world's third-largest Muslim population - continues to allow it.

Narendra Modi-led BJP has recently turned focus to the evil tradition and called for implementing the Uniform Civil Code despite intense criticism from the Muslim bodies.  

http://zeenews.india.com/india/left-to-die-on-road-pregnant-lucknow-woman-writes-to-pm-narendra-modi-to-end-triple-talaq-says-i-voted-for-bjp-1990980.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

New Delhi: The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) strongly opposed the pleas challenging triple talaq, 'nikah halala' and polygamy among Muslims in Supreme Court on Monday.

While putting forward its arguments before the apex court bench, the AIMPLB said that triple talaq mode of divorce can't be termed illegal as “if such casual denunciation of the verses of the holy book is permitted, then soon Islam would cease to exist.”

The Board said the plea challenging the practices like the polygamy were not maintainable as the issues fell outside the realm of judiciary.

AIMPLB further contended that divorce is a private matter and it cannot be enforced by bringing it under the ambit of fundamental rights.

"At the outset, it is submitted that the present petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners seek to enforce fundamental rights against private parties,” AIMPLB told the SC.

The Board said the validity of Mohammedan Law, founded essentially on the Holy Quran and sources based on it, cannot be tested on the particular provisions of the Constitution. It said there was a need for "judicial restraint" before going into constitutional interpretation of these unless such an exercise becomes unavoidable.

"The Mohammedan Law is founded essentially on the Holy Quran and sources based on the Holy Quran and thus it cannot fall within the purview of the expression 'laws in force', as mentioned in Article 13 of the Constitution of India, and hence its validity cannot be tested on a challenge based on Part III of the Constitution," it said.

Over one million Muslims sign petition against triple talaq

In a significant development, over a million Muslims from across India, have called for the end of controversial divorce practice of triple talaq.

A petition started by the Muslim Rashtriya Manch (MRM), an Islamic organisation affiliated with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), calling for the abolition of triple talaq, has received signatures of more over a million Muslims from across India with women in majority.

Several women have filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of the triple talaq practice.

The top court has been urged to spell out whether practice of 'talaq-e-bidat', 'nikah halala' and polygamy were compatible with India's obligations under the international treaties and covenants to which it is a signatory.

The government had cited the instances of changes in marriage laws in Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Turkey, Tunisia, Morocco, Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

The Centre also urged the court to examine whether Article 25 (1) was subject to Part III of the Constitution spelling out the Fundamental Rights, particularly the right to equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty.

'Nikah halala' means a man cannot remarry a woman after triple talaq unless she has already consummated her marriage with another man and then her new husband dies or divorces her.

Ministry of Law and Justice had referred to constitutional principles like gender equality, secularism, international covenants, religious practices and marital law prevalent in various Islamic countries.

Responding to a batch of petitions including the one filed by Shayaro Bano challenging the validity of such practices among Muslims, the Centre had first dealt with the right of gender equality under the Constitution.

All India Muslim Personal Law Board, however, had rubbished the stand taken by the Narendra Modi government that the apex court should re-look these practices as they are violative of fundamental rights like gender equality and the ethos of secularism, a key part of the basic structure of the Constitution.

Another prominent Islamic organisation Jamiat Ulema-i- Hind had told the court there is no scope for interference with the Muslim Personal Law in which triple talaq, 'nikah halala' and polygamy are well rooted and stand on much higher pedestal as compared to other customs.  

http://zeenews.india.com/india/if-triple-talaq-is-termed-illegal-then-soon-islam-would-cease-to-exist-aimplb-to-supreme-court-1990550.html

 

So basically they are over and above the law and judiciary and cannot be asked to follow the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Arguing before the Supreme Court on Monday, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) took two positions on the issue of triple talaq, the practice whereby a Muslim husband utters talaq (divorce) three times to end a marriage. One, it told the court that if triple talaq is declared illegal, it would amount to disregarding Allah's directions and rewriting of the Quran and would force Muslims into committing a sin. Two, the Muslim personal law provisions such as triple talaq enjoyed the protection of the Constitution's Article 25 which guarantees citizens a fundamental right to profess and propagate a religion.

Let's take the second point first. Article 25 gives the "freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion" to the Indian citizen. But this right is subject to two sub-clauses — clause 25 (1) notes that the freedom of religion is "subject to public order, morality and health" and clause 25 (2) clarifies that the right to religion does not "prevent the state from making any law" regarding the welfare of people. So, the Constitution is clear that the right to religion, though a right, is an inferior right among all the fundamental rights. The AIMPLB cannot take refuge under Article 25 because triple talaq is against the public morality of our times.

Representational image. AFP

There are further implications of Article 25. One, the right to religion is available to the Indian citizen, not to religious communities, and certainly, does not apply to organisations like the AIMPLB or Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind and others. Two, Article 25 allows a citizen to practice and propagate his/her beliefs, but the differing institutionalised practices of religious sects are not protected under this right because they are not essential to the belief in a religion. So, if the court declares triple talaq illegal, it will not harm religious beliefs of Muslims and no sin will be committed. About two-dozen Muslim countries including Pakistan have already abolished triple talaq.

Religious practices are also not protected by Article 25 for the simple reason that they harm the welfare of citizens. Notably, Shayara Bano, a Muslim woman from Uttarakhand, has approached the apex court because her welfare is harmed by the arbitrary practice of triple talaq. It is also clear that under the Constitution, the religious freedom is subject to all other fundamental rights. This means that the Article 14, which guarantees the right to equality, overrides Article 25 because triple talaq denies a Muslim woman's equality before the law.

Similarly, Article 25 is subject to Article 15 (1) which says that the State "shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex..." Since triple talaq is anti-women, it violates Article 15 (1) of the Constitution.

To return to the first point. The AIMPLB is not a representative body of Indian Muslims and its members are not elected. The AIMPLB is also an anti-Quranic group. On 3 September 2015, its spokesman Maulana Abdul Raheem Qureshi said: "Though as per Quran and Hadith, 'triple talaq' is a crime, but once said the process would be considered complete and cannot be changed." Hadiths (plural of Hadith), are sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad. Since the AIMPLB admits that the triple talaq is a crime as per the Quran, it must not oppose any move that seeks to declare triple talaq illegal. However, the AIMPLB and other Islamic groups are defending the arbitrary practice of triple talaq despite knowing that it is a crime under the Quran.

The AIMPLB misled the Supreme Court on Monday by submitting: "If such casual denunciation of the verses of the holy book is permitted, then soon Islam would cease to exist. Though triple talaq in one sitting is an unusual mode of divorce in Islam, it cannot be declared to be invalid in the light of the direct verses of Holy Quran and categorical command of the Messenger of Allah." As per the current law, the only way for Muslims to divorce is the practice of triple talaq.

The Quran has a chapter devoted to this subject in the surah called Al-Talaq, which comprises of 12 verses. In these verses, the Quran establishes a procedure for divorce, providing for three talaqs, each delivered at an interval of a month. The Quran does not approve of the instant triple talaq, which is arbitrary and is exercised at the whims of a Muslim husband and many times uttered in a fit of anger. Under the Quranic practice, a talaq must be uttered in the presence of two witnesses. So, the Quran removes the arbitrariness of triple talaq.

If the Supreme Court declares the practice of instant triple talaq, which is given in one sitting, as illegal, the apex court's decision will still be as per the Quran. It can be said with certainty that the position adopted by the AIMPLB before the Supreme Court is, therefore, anti-Quranic and anti-Constitutional. Under the existing law, a Muslim woman can approach the courts to seek, not to give, divorce; alternatively, she can resort to the informal practice of seeking divorce through an Islamic cleric. However, a Muslim husband cannot go to the court to give divorce; the only option open before him is to deliver triple talaq either through Islamic clerics or through informal means such as a letter, phone call, or WhatsApp messages.

The current practice of instant triple talaq cannot be acceptable as per the modern standards of morality. It has emerged as a menace to the society in India. It is also violative of the Constitution's Article 21 which guarantees to Indian citizens the protection of life and personal liberty, which includes human dignity. Currently, it is the dignity of Muslim women that is being challenged by Islamic groups like the AIMPLB. The Muslim women who are divorced via triple talaq, are increasingly approaching the Supreme Court to uphold their right to dignity and liberty, which must be supported by everyone.

However, ending the practice of triple talaq will not end the miseries of Muslim women, who need to send their daughters to study and permit them to work. Even the number of talaqs, whether triple or not, should be meaningless if the same is uttered in the presence of a judge at three monthly intervals to complete the Quranic procedure. To remove its arbitrariness and at the minimum, the Supreme Court of India must rule that all Muslim divorces must be given in a court, not in parallel Shariah courts run by numerous Islamist groups such as the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, AIMPLB, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind.

http://www.firstpost.com/india/triple-talaq-muslim-law-boards-stand-in-supreme-court-rebuffs-quran-constitution-3356000.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zen said:

Iirc, many islamic countries have abolished such practices 

 

 

I think its there, Not in exact same format.

Muslim men all over Muslim nations have managed to avoid little or negligible amount of maintenance responsibility to their women as its considered a contract and grounds/circumstances for cancelling the contract aren't defined.

 

IMO, Tripple Talaq is fine but before that a court and lawyer should decide what women should get and not the marriage contract.

Alternatively If Mias so definitely want tripple Talaq and contract, Government  can make it mandatory that marriage contracts must be and  only written in special court of law where by atleast 50% of assets and a regular percent of earning goes to wife + standard per minor child maintenance al;ong with custody.

 

I will be surprised if any of the Mia will have balls to Talaq after that :nevermind:

Edited by mishra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

I had put this elsewhere, but it makes sense her...look at his aukat

 

 

C0mri0KWgAA9da5.jpg

 

C50oEYXWUAEDWT5.jpg

 

by writing the above at the back of their vehicles, these guys are in fact showing their aukat .... in the pics, some of the ladies would hardly be able to see comfortably through the very narrow slit

Edited by zen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^

A lot better than what Batman can see through that mask of his.

 

Why the rickshaw have taxi written behind it???

 

I expect this government to abolish triple talaq in the next couple of years. Anything less would be a let down. About the UCC, I'm not sure what to expect. So far apart from raising the UCC as a poll time rabble rousing issue, I haven't come across any actual effort towards implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mariyam said:

^^^

A lot better than what Batman can see through that mask of his.

 

Why the rickshaw have taxi written behind it???

 

I expect this government to abolish triple talaq in the next couple of years. Anything less would be a let down. About the UCC, I'm not sure what to expect. So far apart from raising the UCC as a poll time rabble rousing issue, I haven't come across any actual effort towards implementation.

Mariyam, what's the consensus on 'triple talaq' in local Muslim community? Is it divided in general.. or divided on gender line? News channels can be bias .. even this article can be bias so asking you.. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, veer said:

Mariyam, what's the consensus on 'triple talaq' in local Muslim community? Is it divided in general.. or divided on gender line? News channels can be bias .. even this article can be bias so asking you.. .

There isn't much of a consensus. And this is a very difficult question to answer. And to be honest, most of the answers are depressing.

 

In my observation based on a few of years of practice, Triple Talaq is more prevalent among the orthodox rich and educated Muslims. That being said, the husband in most of these cases willingly parts with a decent amount of money and ensures that his ex spouse doesn't face financial hardship and is taken care of. Most of these women are not employed.

Among the poorer sections, the incidence of Triple Talaq is lesser. But when it does occur, the husband parts with next to nothing. Most of the wives here, however are employed in the informal sector or as domestic helps and can eek out a living.

Among the salaried neo middle class Muslim households, triple talaq is very rare.

 

Obviously there is a division of opinion along the gender line. Women aren't in favour of this archaic rule at all.

 

Among the legal fraternity, the opinion is divided. Even among those taking up the cause of women at the receiving end of a triple talaq. Most of the women are abused and left for younger wives and the prospect of dowry. Common practice among poorer sections, as they can't afford multiple wives. Almost every time, spousal abuse precedes the triple talaq, Most of these women have had it with the abusive marriages and press for punitive charges. Or various law firms do that on their behalf. These firms vehemently argue in favour of the triple talaq being banned.

 

There is an alternate school of thought. Flavia Agnes, for instance, argues that the Triple Talaq shouldn't be banned.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Mariyam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, mishra said:

I think its there, Not in exact same format.

Muslim men all over Muslim nations have managed to avoid little or negligible amount of maintenance responsibility to their women as its considered a contract and grounds/circumstances for cancelling the contract aren't defined.

 

IMO, Tripple Talaq is fine but before that a court and lawyer should decide what women should get and not the marriage contract.

Alternatively If Mias so definitely want tripple Talaq and contract, Government  can make it mandatory that marriage contracts must be and  only written in special court of law where by atleast 50% of assets and a regular percent of earning goes to wife + standard per minor child maintenance al;ong with custody.

 

I will be surprised if any of the Mia will have balls to Talaq after that :nevermind:

Our talaq laws are great because it keeps women in their place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mariyam said:

There isn't much of a consensus. And this is a very difficult question to answer. And to be honest, most of the answers are depressing.

 

In my observation based on a few of years of practice, Triple Talaq is more prevalent among the orthodox rich and educated Muslims. That being said, the husband in most of these cases willingly parts with a decent amount of money and ensures that his ex spouse doesn't face financial hardship and is taken care of. Most of these women are not employed.

Among the poorer sections, the incidence of Triple Talaq is lesser. But when it does occur, the husband parts with next to nothing. Most of the wives here, however are employed in the informal sector or as domestic helps and can eek out a living.

Among the salaried neo middle class Muslim households, triple talaq is very rare.

 

Obviously there is a division of opinion along the gender line. Women aren't in favour of this archaic rule at all.

 

Among the legal fraternity, the opinion is divided. Even among those taking up the cause of women at the receiving end of a triple talaq. Most of the women are abused and left for younger wives and the prospect of dowry. Common practice among poorer sections, as they can't afford multiple wives. Almost every time, spousal abuse precedes the triple talaq, Most of these women have had it with the abusive marriages and press for punitive charges. Or various law firms do that on their behalf. These firms vehemently argue in favour of the triple talaq being banned.

 

There is an alternate school of thought. Flavia Agnes, for instance, argues that the Triple Talaq shouldn't be banned.

That is indeed depressing.. This day in age, there shouldnt be question on to ban or not to ban this law.. it should be matter of how soon... Talaq on facebook and skype?? Seriously?? Huge injustice to muslim women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, panther said:

Our talaq laws are great because it keeps women in their place. 

Chachha tu baat to aise kar raha he ki men chaand par pahoch gaye women ko apni place dikha kar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Texan said:

And then get executed, right?

Reminds me of the funny story of the Sikh man who became muslim after a few months he went to the mufti complaining that this religion is too hard and that he can't cope with all the prayers, fasting and all the rules and that he wants to leave, the mufti told him to shut up or we will cut your head off, the Sikh man replied what kind of religion is this?, When you enter they cut you're foreskin and when you want to leave they chop off your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, panther said:

Our talaq laws are great because it keeps women in their place. 

 

2 hours ago, panther said:

Doesn't make a difference if i want to divorce my wife i say it 9 times instead of 3 in one sitting.

Exactly! We want a fairer system where Muslim men also suffer the same fate as rest of men by generally parting with at least 50% of assets and a regular percent of earning and standard per minor child maintenance along with custody of child.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, mishra said:

 

Exactly! We want a fairer system where Muslim men also suffer the same fate as rest of men by generally parting with at least 50% of assets and a regular percent of earning and standard per minor child maintenance along with custody of child.

 

 

So is that how it works in Indian courts? This bs system just gives women an incentive to divorce, oh well Indian men can always go mgtow.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, panther said:

So is that how it works in Indian courts? This bs system just gives women an incentive to divorce, oh well Indian men can always go mgtow.

 

 

Isnt thats how it works almost everywhere (west too) ? If lawyer is good, Women will get all of that. So dont blame Indian men only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, mishra said:

Isnt thats how it works almost everywhere (west too) ? If lawyer is good, Women will get all of that. So dont blame Indian men only.

Not in Islamic countries, divorce does not favour women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Muloghonto said:

You clearly don't know much about your own religion. Most muslims marry with a dowry set aside for the wife to claim when divorced. Did you not know that ?

if the woman initiates the divorce she must give the mehr(dowry)back to the husband if he demands it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, panther said:

if the woman initiates the divorce she must give the mehr(dowry)back to the husband if he demands it.

Unless she is initiating divorce from husband due to reasons sanctioned in the Koran. For e.g., woman can initiate divorce if they remain childless (and husband doesnt sire children with other wives) and still keep the dowry. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Unless she is initiating divorce from husband due to reasons sanctioned in the Koran. For e.g., woman can initiate divorce if they remain childless (and husband doesnt sire children with other wives) and still keep the dowry. 

 

These are exceptions rather than the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

nothing favours women in Islamic countries...for some reason your prophet was too scared of women it seems.

good that's how it should be you can keep your egalitarianism, thanks but no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, panther said:

good that's how it should be you can keep your egalitarianism, thanks but no thanks.

But why are you guys so afraid of women ?

Also, its easy for you to say no thanks, because you are not negatively affected and benefit from oppression of women. Has a thief ever said thievery should be illegal ? Same applies here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

But why are you guys so afraid of women ?

Also, its easy for you to say no thanks, because you are not negatively affected and benefit from oppression of women. Has a thief ever said thievery should be illegal ? Same applies here.

 

The best place for women is their homes.

 

Also this ruling is an attempt by BJP to reduce muslims fertility rate and delay Ghazwa e hind.

 

 

Edited by panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, panther said:

The best place for women is their homes.

 

Also this ruling is an attempt by BJP to reduce muslims fertility rate and delay Ghazwa e hind.

 

 

1.Ghazwa e hind already happened. And you failed. if your God was real, muslims wouldn't be the most backwards technological and knowledge people in the world. You've were always behind Christians, Hindus and Chinese atheists throughout the ages in learning and you remain that way. Coz your God aint real bro. Just concocted by backwards desert peoples.

 

2. Again, easy for you to say, since you are the thief in this situation. No thieves will ever say thievery is wrong so when you steal women's rights, obviously you will support it. Women's rights existed before your prophet came along, it exists after your prophet died and it is here to exist.

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

1.Ghazwa e hind already happened. And you failed. if your God was real, muslims wouldn't be the most backwards technological and knowledge people in the world. You've were always behind Christians, Hindus and Chinese atheists throughout the ages in learning and you remain that way. Coz your God aint real bro. Just concocted by backwards desert peoples.

 

2. Again, easy for you to say, since you are the thief in this situation. No thieves will ever say thievery is wrong so when you steal women's rights, obviously you will support it. Women's rights existed before your prophet came along, it exists after your prophet died and it is here to exist.

 

Why is thievery Wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, panther said:

No I want to know why you think it is wrong?

because stealing is defined as unlawful possession. Anything that is not yours to inherit, earned legally, bequeathed upon you by someone else or simply found, is unlawful posession- i.e., theft. Because if those above mentioned criteria isn't fulfilled, it means the 'item' is in lawful possession of someone else and you taking it, is breaking their lawful possession rights.


In this case, the Koran stole women's rights because it wasnt given to its author (mohammed) by all the women of this planet. 



PS: you haven't explained why Afghans like yourself are so afraid of women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

because stealing is defined as unlawful possession. Anything that is not yours to inherit, earned legally, bequeathed upon you by someone else or simply found, is unlawful posession- i.e., theft. Because if those above mentioned criteria isn't fulfilled, it means the 'item' is in lawful possession of someone else and you taking it, is breaking their lawful possession rights.


In this case, the Koran stole women's rights because it wasnt given to its author (mohammed) by all the women of this planet. 



PS: you haven't explained why Afghans like yourself are so afraid of women.

Who defined it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, panther said:

Who defined it? 

We the people defined it.  Your book also defines theft as unlawful possession. 

 

PS: Why do you keep running away from my question ? why are Afghan men so afraid of women ?

 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Guest, sign in to access all features.

×